The appellant could not have reasonably foreseen the danger that the dropped package posed to the respondent, therefore the claim of negligence is unsupported by the facts. HOLDING: Judgment reversed.

Lucy v. Zehmer, 196 Va. 493, 84 S.E.2d 516 (1954)

FACTS:

While both parties had been drinking, Lucy offered $50,000 to Zehmer for a farm.

In an effort to force Lucy to reveal that he did not have $50,000, Zehmer wrote up a contract for sale of the property and had his wife sign it.

When Lucy attempted to pay Zehmer the asking price, Zehmer refused despite admitting the price was more than fair.

Lucy sued Zehmer for specific performance and the lower court found in favor of Zehmer.

Lucy appealed to the Virginia Supreme Court.

ISSUE: Intentions hidden from other parties to a contract are irrelevant to whether a contract is valid (17 C.J.S., Contracts, § 133 b., p. 483; Taliaferro v. Emery, 124 Va. 674, 98 S.E. 627; First Nat. Bank v. Roanoke Oil Co., 169 VA. 99, 114, 192 S.E....

764, 770). In the absence of fraud, misrepresentation, sharp dealing, or other forms of inequity, specific performance is typically awarded through the court's discretion (Bond v. Crawford, 193 Va. 437, 444, 69 S.E.(2d) 470, 475). Enforcement of court-ordered specific performance is indirect, through mechanisms such as contempt of court.
REASONING: According to the Court, the respondent's argument that he was too drunk to understand that the contract was valid was unsupported by the evidence. The same was concluded by the Court regarding respondent's claim that the contract was made in jest, because hidden intentions are irrelevant in contract law. Given the good faith conduct of the appellant, and the respondent's admission that the price was fair, there is no basis for claims of fraud, misrepresentation, sharp dealing or any other form of inequity, therefore the court ordered specific performance.

HOLDING: Reversed and remanded.

References

Lucy v. Zehmer, 196 Va. 493; 84 S.E.2d 516; 1954 Va. LEXIS 244.

Palsgraf…